Technology races on and there are new and far more sophisticated devices available today that were unheard of 6 years ago, and these are incorporated into all of the new amplifiers.

I'm curious to read more on what this statement entails, and what it means for real-world performance.

Here's a shortlist of the "big ones":

Lower distortion, particularly at low power outputs where the amplifier spends most of its time operating.

Higher efficiency.

Cooler idling temperature.

Better control of output stage switching = excellent long term reliability.

Extremely robust and instantaneous protection circuitry for major fault conditions.

I have a question about #2. Lower distortion at lower output levels. This and possibly in combination with other parameters in the amps design. My question is.

Have you found through either the development phase, comparisons to other amplification (like receivers which we all use) or just living with the product in your home testing different source material and more importantly different speakers, if this amp can provide sound quality benefits even at low to moderate listening levels?

_________________________
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.

My Denon AVR-3808CI has a built-in 130 watt internal amplifier for each speaker. I know not all AVR's are like the older Japan-built Denon's. Would adding one of these amp's make any difference in my case? Based on room size, the 1000 series would be what I need, but at 8 Ohms, the 125 watts this amp delivers is already below what the 3808 claims to supply.

I have a 4311CI rated at 140W per channel with 9 channels. Can it drive all 9 channels simultaneously at 140W, no, not even close. The detailed specs list 9 channels at 140W but right below that list is something they refer to as Dynamic Power and it lists 150W x 2 Channels. In reality 150W with two channels driven is what the amp can really do and in my experience just by looking at the size and weight of the transformer, I would believe that.

Actually with movies having a scene that would demand full volume out of all channels is quite rare I think. So even though the Denon specs are misleading, they could probably defend their claim.

Just about a month ago, I took an ancient Bryston 3B I had in storage and hooked it up to the Denon preamp out of the Front L/R to drive my M80s. This made a significant improvement for some movies. Two movies I can point out are Tron and Super 8. The train crash scene of Super 8 is awesome for testing; there are loud crashing sounds from all speakers. As the Denon no longer had to drive the M80s, it had significantly more power available for the center, surrounds and backs. Overall, adding the Bryston has made a noticible overall improvement.

It's funny; the new Axiom amps arrived just at the right time for me. My 25 year old Bryston (and yes I bought it almost new... sigh, I feel so old) is nice but is a power hog and although still sounds clean is based on technology close to 30 years old. So, after hearing the improvement an external amp makes when used with my fronts, I already have put in my pre order for a A1000.

_________________________
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert.

I hope that was not too hard to follow and helps to clarify the continuous power ratings.

This was very easy to follow, thank you for explaining this so well. I understand now.

Originally Posted By: Andrew

Once we take losses, including the amplifier's efficiency, into account, the available voltage swing is reduced even further. It's this voltage swing that determines the maximum, continuous output power that the amplifier can deliver into a given load, assuming that we have unlimited current available. So, even though we might be able to deliver 1500 watts from the power supply, the amplifier is limited by the rail voltage.

Since the +/- 85Vdc rails seem to be a limiting factor in how much continuous power can be delivered to an one channel at a time, then why don't designers simply go with rails rated with a larger figure? For example if there were a +/- 170Vdc rail, then running the calculations would give approximately 1500 Watts for one channel. Is this a big added expense to the overall design, or just not possible because of some other reason? Or maybe that people don't need 1500 Watts continuous power delivered to one channel?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but am just trying to understand the basics of amplifier designs with my very limited knowledge.

My Denon AVR-3808CI has a built-in 130 watt internal amplifier for each speaker. I know not all AVR's are like the older Japan-built Denon's. Would adding one of these amp's make any difference in my case? Based on room size, the 1000 series would be what I need, but at 8 Ohms, the 125 watts this amp delivers is already below what the 3808 claims to supply.

I have a 4311CI rated at 140W per channel with 9 channels. Can it drive all 9 channels simultaneously at 140W, no, not even close. The detailed specs list 9 channels at 140W but right below that list is something they refer to as Dynamic Power and it lists 150W x 2 Channels. In reality 150W with two channels driven is what the amp can really do and in my experience just by looking at the size and weight of the transformer, I would believe that.

Actually with movies having a scene that would demand full volume out of all channels is quite rare I think. So even though the Denon specs are misleading, they could probably defend their claim.

Just about a month ago, I took an ancient Bryston 3B I had in storage and hooked it up to the Denon preamp out of the Front L/R to drive my M80s. This made a significant improvement for some movies. Two movies I can point out are Tron and Super 8. The train crash scene of Super 8 is awesome for testing; there are loud crashing sounds from all speakers. As the Denon no longer had to drive the M80s, it had significantly more power available for the center, surrounds and backs. Overall, adding the Bryston has made a noticible overall improvement.

It's funny; the new Axiom amps arrived just at the right time for me. My 25 year old Bryston (and yes I bought it almost new... sigh, I feel so old) is nice but is a power hog and although still sounds clean is based on technology close to 30 years old. So, after hearing the improvement an external amp makes when used with my fronts, I already have put in my pre order for a A1000.

Boltron, thanks for the reply. I was hoping to get some real-world, relatable advice like this from someone with a similar receiver. I'm starting to understand the advantages an amp would afford my system. After you get your 1000, please let us know your thoughts. I'd especially be intersted in how warm the unit gets.

I can’t believe I may have just found someone looking for more power than even I would consider enough. At some point the power per channel is out of the range of being of any sort of limitation. Using a 3-channel 1500 series amp to power the three front channels (M80s and a VP180) you would have 700 watts of power available to each them with a total shared power of 1500 watts available (a separate 4-channel amp could be used for the surrounds). This may be getting close to all anyone would need but don’t quote me on that.

I notice now that in my previous reply, although I correctly defined slew rate in terms of volts per microsecond, in the examples I typed "second". The numbers are correct, but the time unit should of course be microseconds(millionths of a second).